Bumbling Idiot SRPD

The SRPD chief should have meetings with officers giving guidelines on how to handle the public and given out equipment to officers and had supplies to give to public they are dealing with. How hard is it for officers to read guidelines suggested by CDC and implement them. Is it a prerequisite to have an IQ of 59 to be join the SRPD? Aren t aware what is going on? The homeless in the area have suffered enough harassment in the past few months. Those officers should be hung by the nuts and get stoned by the public they have endangered from 6 feet away like the officers are supposed to honor the public’s space. What a bunch of pig headed idiots

this is more than a bit extreme.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by redbutton:

The SRPD chief should have meetings with officers giving guidelines on how to handle the public and given out equipment to officers and had supplies to give to public they are dealing with. How hard is it for officers to read guidelines suggested by CDC and implement them. Is it a prerequisite to have an IQ of 59 to be join the SRPD? ...

---

It's true that decades ago the supreme court ruled that doing well on intelligence tests is sufficient reason to be declined police employment. We reap what we sow. I don't think I can just sit in the car anymore with my hands on the wheel and be approached to hand over papers. Which I need back. If I jump out with hands in the air shouting for reason why will I be shot? Probably. What to do the next time I'm pulled over for looking like a poor man?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by redbutton:

The SRPD chief should have meetings with officers giving guidelines on how to handle the public and given out equipment to officers and had supplies to give to public they are dealing with. How hard is it for officers to read guidelines suggested by CDC and implement them. Is it a prerequisite to have an IQ of 59 to be join the SRPD? Aren t aware what is going on? The homeless in the area have suffered enough harassment in the past few months. Those officers should be hung by the nuts and get stoned by the public they have endangered from 6 feet away like the officers are supposed to honor the public’s space. What a bunch of pig headed idiots

---

ABC News
Sept 8, 2000

Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
N E W L O N D O N, Conn., Sept. 8, 2000 -- A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

It's true that decades ago the supreme court ruled that doing well on intelligence tests is sufficient reason to be declined police employment. We reap what we sow. I don't think I can just sit in the car anymore with my hands on the wheel and be approached to hand over papers. Which I need back. If I jump out with hands in the air shouting for reason why will I be shot? Probably. What to do the next time I'm pulled over for looking like a poor man?

---

Hey, Barry -

How about taking this thread down? WACCO doesn't need this kind of nonsense.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:

ABC News
Sept 8, 2000

Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
...

---

Strangely enough, it's not complete nonsense. The original rant was, shall we say, overblown. But I decided to leave it up because you never know what things it might inspire.

Rossmen's response was a bit difficult to decode, but, what the hell. I thought he was kidding about "It's true that decades ago the supreme court ruled that doing well on intelligence tests is sufficient reason to be declined police employment."

But Valley Oak's link validating that turns out to be real as far as I can tell! Wouldn't have thought it would lead there, but it was worth the ride! Kinda scary...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by luke32:

Hey, Barry -

How about taking this thread down? WACCO doesn't need this kind of nonsense.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Strangely enough, it's not complete nonsense. ...

---

remember, intelligence tests measure something, but it's not like people who do poorly are necessarily stupid, and the people who do best aren't necessarily the kind of 'smart' that you'd want in a cop, (or, in a drinking buddy, maybe).

If you use it the way this purports to, it's a stand-in for a personality test. Filtering out the pointy-headed nerds, I suppose was their idea. Not that this policy is remotely sensible, because all this kind of testing is problematic when used by bureaucracies. But it's not really a clear statement that "we only want dumb cops".

Another point is that often the police are disparaged... until you need their help. Then you want them, you want their help, their protection. It's good when police are integrated into the culture, rather than viewed as an occupying force. I think the post that high IQ disqualifies an applicant was unfortunate and untrue. There are some really smart cops. I've known some of them.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

remember, intelligence tests measure something, but it's not like people who do poorly are necessarily stupid, ...

---

I do know that the police classes at the SRJC didn't seem to want to teach about the Constitution; had a friend who took the classes. Sounds right to me.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Strangely enough, it's not complete nonsense. ...

---

At the time the case went to the supreme court I remember the justification for the denial of the applicant was that it's a boring job and we want people who will follow the rules. The justices agreed. I don't know if this criteria is still used, probably depends on the department. I know smart cops too. The job has evolved, some places. Round here they are expected to be front line social workers who carry a gun and are licensed to kill. It takes multiple types of high intelligence to do this successfully.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

... I think the post that high IQ disqualifies an applicant was unfortunate and untrue. There are some really smart cops. I've known some of them.

---

Wow... It's true and crazy... Just more crazy...

Please provide a citation to the Supreme Court case to which you refer, so we can read it for ourselves. Without the decision to read, this is a useless discussion.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

At the time the case went to the supreme court I remember the justification for the denial of the applicant was that it's a boring job and we want people who will follow the rules. The justices agreed. I don't know if this criteria is still used, probably depends on the department. I know smart cops too. The job has evolved, some places. Round here they are expected to be front line social workers who carry a gun and are licensed to kill. It takes multiple types of high intelligence to do this successfully.

---

It wasn't decided in the Supreme Court, but rather in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
Here's the case.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Finell:

Please provide a citation to the Supreme Court case to which you refer, so we can read it for ourselves. Without the decision to read, this is a useless discussion.

---

Finell, I remember fact checking this recently, I believe this is the original case from 1996: https://www.aele.org/apa/jordan-newlondon.html , "

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Robert Jordan,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

City of New London and

Keith Harrigan,

Defendants.

Civil No. 3:97CV1012 (PCD)

1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14289

15 IER Cases (BNA) 919

August 29, 1999, Decided

September 2, 1999, Filed

I'm not sure the supreme court made a ruling. The appellate court decision referred to in the news article cited was appealed to the supreme court, most probably they let it stand.

Another interesting detail was the iq cutoff for recruits. I remember it was 120 or 125. The applicant/plaintiff tested mid 140s. Although he might have been a very persistent and highly intelligent cop, I don't get the motivation to take it all the way to the supreme court. You'd think he would find something else to do.